Fat & Happy - The White House
The Biden administration suddenly feigns concern for Americans' health
This past Tuesday, the White House released an executive summary detailing the Biden administration’s official strategy on tackling hunger, nutrition, and health. The summary details various tactics to reduce diet-related illnesses such as type 2 diabetes and obesity, and states that it will focus primarily on five pillars: 1) Improving food access and affordability, 2) Integrating nutrition and health, 3) Empowering all consumers to make and have access to healthy choices, 4) Supporting physical activity for all, and 5) Enhancing nutrition and food security research. I find it quite hysterical that the man who encouraged staying at home and closing gyms has suddenly decided that America has a diet and exercise problem.
I’m waiting on the edge of my seat for leftist snowflakes to decry how fatphobic this executive summary is, which dares to suggest that morbid obesity is anything less than brave and beautiful. I’m also quite looking forward to any accusations of racism and colonialism that will be hurled at Biden, since apparently being healthy is a hallmark of white supremacy now (you really can’t make this stuff up).
But the real kicker here isn’t the hypocrisy of the Biden administration, nor the social contagion that insists obesity is healthy; it’s that the U.S. government has been making Americans fatter and fatter for quite some time now. Between 2012 and 2022, the obesity epidemic has grown by more than 20 million people, netting out to over 30% of the U.S. population. Some may disagree that there is any intention on the government’s part to increase obesity; I contend that the history of U.S. food policies and regulations beg to differ.
Among type 2 diabetes and obesity, one of the diseases the executive summary states it will address is “certain cancers.” They do not specify which cancers, nor why that would be relevant to a diet and exercise strategy. However, it’s important to note that cancer can in fact be related to food intake; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows known carcinogens to be used in food flavoring, as well as untested chemicals that may very well be carcinogens. One of these additives is arsenic - arsenic, for crying out loud, which could arguably be the posterchild for poisons. And yet, the Biden executive summary makes no mention of toxins in foods, nor does it address any changes in FDA policy to prevent the use of such toxins.
Additionally, the U.S. food supply is highly saturated with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a substitute for sugar first introduced in the 1970s. HFCS quickly became the dominant sugar component in food production due to the increasingly costly tariffs on cane and beet sugar distribution, tariffs which have existed in this country since 1789. A few things to note about HFCS and how it differs from sugar: not only is HFCS far more processed than cane or beet sugar, but there’s also less data on the long-term effects of consuming HFCS than there is on sugar. HFCS has also been inextricably linked to obesity and type 2 diabetes prevalence globally. And, yet again, the Biden executive summary remains silent on the topic of HFCS and sugar tariffs.
Another important factor in understanding the failings of America’s food policy is that U.S. FDA regulations are quite lax compared to food regulations in Europe. The FDA classifies approved food additives as “GRAS,” which stands for “Generally Recognized as Safe.” This very ambiguous term applies to any substance that is “generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use,” according to the FDA. Meanwhile, the EU places significant emphasis on local and organic ingredients as well as high standards of health in food production via the General Food Law which was passed in 2002. It’s also been observed that many food producers, such as Heinz and Quaker Oats, have healthier ingredient compositions for products distributed in the EU compared to their American counterparts. By now, it shouldn’t come as a surprise when I say that the Biden executive summary has nothing to say about the FDA’s GRAS policy.
In summation - I don’t trust this strategy for a second. Frankly, I don’t trust anything these people have to say about health and food access after they’ve spent the past two years advocating for lockdowns which, funnily enough, greatly exacerbated food shortages and access issues.
Am I being too harsh on the Biden administration, on the U.S. government at large? Is this really some kind of coordinated attack on the health of American citizens, or is it just plain old negligence? I’d say it’s quite plausible; after all, globalist organizations like the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum are directly sabotaging our food supply - who’s to say that the U.S. government isn’t joining in on the fun?
Bill Gates is currently the largest private owner of farmland in the U.S. after several years of high-profile purchases. While some establishment propagandists are claiming that Gates’s buying spree is strictly for innovations in agricultural technology, I find that altruistic motive unlikely given Gates’s stated interest in “reducing population growth” (yes, that’s an exact quote). Gates has also expressed that he believes the U.S. should move away from organic beef entirely and towards 100% synthetic beef; this would seem to support a very reasonable hypothesis, namely that Gates is trying to put a complete stop to livestock farming and meat consumption.
The World Economic Forum (which lists the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a partner organization) has also been promoting synthetic and cultured beef in recent years. But, don’t worry; if synthetic beef isn’t to your liking, they also recommend another form of protein: insects. The WEF states that eating insects can have a “positive impact” on climate change, and that the globe’s rising population and declining resources will eventually necessitate making insects part of our food groups. Coming from the group that wishes the earth had a population level like what it was “500 years ago,” I think it’s pretty clear that the World Economic Forum doesn’t prioritize the health and food security of everyday people.
As for the motive? Well, it’s been proven that obesity has a positive correlation with impulsivity. Anyone who has experienced drug or alcohol abuse or has known someone afflicted by it can attest firsthand that addiction leads to impulsivity as well. Paired with the fact that states like California have been pursuing state-funded, open-air drug use sites for addicts (which they somehow claim will curb addiction), I think you’d be hard-pressed to argue that our state and federal governments have any genuine concern for our health. I’d even argue that these actions are intentional, attempting to create a population of malnourished junkies who stay inside all day watching CNN. After all, what better population could a government ask for than one that’s easily controlled?